2025:JHHC:26606 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 600 of 2025 Sujata Kumari @ Sujata Kumari Srivastava, W/o Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, R/o Village-Anirudh Belsar, P.O. and P.S.-Vaishali, currently residing at Kishore Ganj, P.O. & P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Bisheshwar Mahato, S/o Kamalnath Mahato, R/o Village Chardi, Jamua Toli P.O. & P.S.-Pithoria, District-Ranchi 2. Bartu Mahato, S/o Kamal Nath Mahato 3. Jag Ram Mahato, S/o Kamal Nath Mahato 4. Ramjeet Mahato, S/o Chamu Mahato 5. Kanchan Mahato, S/o Chamu Mahato All residents of village-Chardi, Jamuatoli, P.O.-Kumharia, P.S.-Pithoria, District-Ranchi … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate ------ Order No. 04 / Dated : 01.09.2025. 1. Petitioner is the intervenor applicant whose petition filed under Order XX Rule 18 read with Order 1, Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the impugned order dated 05.04.2025 in Original Suit No.970/2019. Aggrieved by the order the instant civil miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the impugned order. 2. The petition of impleadment has been rejected on the ground that the petition was filed at the stage of preparation of final decree. 3. The petitioner claims to have acquired right, title and interest in the suit over R.S. Plot No. 274 appertaining to Khata No.-142 in village-Kumhariya, P.S. Pithoriya, District-Ranchi over five decimals of land on the basis of a registered sale deed bearing No. 1207 dated 29.01.2007 executed by Kamal Nath Mahato through his constituted attorney namely Dr. Sunil Kumar Mahato. After the said purchase, he came into khas possession of the property and got it mutated in his name in Mutation Case No. 3242 R 27/2009-10 and the rent is being paid and rent receipt being issued by the Competent Authority. 4. The land purchased by the petitioner was part of large plot of land measuring 2025:JHHC:26606 an area 553 decimals purchased by Madho Mahato by registered deed of sale dated 19.04.1948. 5. The vendor of the intervenor applicant Kamal Nath Mahato was one of the sons of Madho Mahato. Madho Mahato died leaving behind Kamal Nath Mahato and Chamu Mahato. 6. Partition Suit No. 261/2011 was filed Bisheshwar Mahato son of Kamal Nath Mahato impleading other members of the joint family which was decreed and a preliminary decree was drawn for 1/5th share of the Schedule-A property and 1/4th share of the Schedule-B property of the plaintiff. 7. Petitioner claims that the title by registered sale deed executed from the father of the plaintiff/ decree holder, over a part of Schedule-A property. On this ground, the petitioner moved before the Trial Court for being impleaded at the stage of preparation of final decree. 8. The Trial Court while preparing the final decree in Original P.S. No. 970 of 2019 rejected the Petition on the ground that the preliminary decree had been prepared and the petitioner had not joined the suit before preparation of preliminary decree. 9. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the law is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioner being the purchaser from the father of the plaintiff had acquired the share in the suit property, and he was entitled to the share accordingly in the final decree as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2007) 10 SCC 719. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where when a pendente lite purchase was made by any intervenor applicant, he was entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in his favour in the final decree proceedings. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is on better footing as he has purchased the land even before filing of the partition suit from the father of the plaintiff. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 has submitted that since the petitioner had at no stage challenged the preliminary decree nor he had filed any application for being impleaded at the trial stage, therefore, he cannot be permitted to claim share at the final decree proceeding. 11. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has good ground for being impleaded in the final decree proceeding for the reasons that under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, the Court has a discretion to add parties at any stage, if their presence 2025:JHHC:26606 is necessary for effective and complete adjudication. In a partition suit, the matter is not finally disposed of till the final decree proceeding is concluded. Here the petitioner claims to have acquired right, title and interest over five decimals of land purchased from the father of the plaintiff and the suit property was also mutated in her name. Therefore, she is a necessary party for the effective adjudication so as to ensure proper and effective partition and avoid future dispute. Even at the stage of final decree, a pre-suit purchaser can be impleaded as a party. The impugned order is set aside. This Civil Misc. Petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -